Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Ramsay v Leichhardt Council [No 2] [2005] NSWLEC 477
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.PARTIES: Applicant;
Colin James RamsayRespondent:
Leichhardt CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 10256 of 2005
CORAM: Roseth SC
KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- development on zone boundaries
DATES OF HEARING: 15/07/2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
09/01/2005LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Applicant:
Respondent:
Mr J Strati, solicitor of Avendra Singh Strati &Kam
Ms E Ranken, solicitor of Pike Pike & Fenwick
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALESRoseth SC
2 September 2005
JUDGMENT10256 of 2005 Colin James Ramsay v Leichhardt Council [No 2]
1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the deemed refusal of a development application to add a residential floor to the existing office building on lot 31, s3, DP 1162, known as 310 Norton Street, Leichhardt.
2 On 5 August 2005 I published my findings, the main effect of which was to require a setback of 4.5m for the residential floor above the existing office building. The findings left it open to the applicant to file amended drawings that comply with the required setback. The applicant has indicated that it does not intend to file amended drawings. The parties have agreed to my making the orders dismissing the appeal in chambers.
Orders
2. Development application to add a residential floor to the existing office building on lot 31, s3, DP 1162, known as 310 Norton Street, Leichhardt is determined by refusal.
3. The exhibits are returned.
_________________
Dr John Roseth
Senior Commissioner
01/09/2005 - typographical error - Paragraph(s) cover page
- AGLC
- Ramsay v Leichhardt Council [No 2] [2005] NSWLEC 477
- Case
- [2005] NSWLEC 477
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the applicant, Mr Ramsay, could amend the development application to comply with the required setback of 4.5 meters for the residential floor above the existing office building. The court's decision was influenced by the applicant's indication that he did not intend to file amended drawings that would meet the setback requirements. The legal considerations included the interpretation of zoning laws and the council's discretion in granting development approvals.
After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court concluded that the development application did not comply with the setback requirements and dismissed the appeal. The court determined the application by refusal, meaning that the proposed development could not proceed as initially planned. The exhibits were returned to the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.